SPEECH: Minister Hussen’s Commitment to Address Unintended Consequences of Bill C-45 for Immigrants

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the other place in front of us today. Senator Harder elaborated in great detail about the content of the message, and I want to refer, in particular, to the consequences for permanent residents who are convicted of summary offences under Bill C-45.

Of course, I’m disappointed that the government saw fit to reject this amendment, and this in spite of the reasoned approach that we put forward. We pointed out the distorted, disproportionate, unintended outcome of certain sections of Bill C-45 on permanent residents. Not to repeat myself, but, in essence, a double penalty is imposed on permanent residents who are found to be in contravention of Bill C-45. This double penalty is imposed even when there is a conditional discharge or someone serves no time at all.

We argued in committee and in the chamber, I believe, that it was not simply unfair but also against the principle of the bill, which is decriminalization. Instead, as a knock-on effect, there is an over-the-top impact on just one class of residents, and that is permanent residents, while others follow a different path to rehabilitation. So different strokes for different folks, in other words.

We did not ask for special treatment but for equal treatment for those who are convicted. By focusing the amendment on those whose penalty is less than six months, we would not be covering or dealing with those individuals who have caused bodily harm and who, therefore, would be serious criminals.

Our amendment was reasonable. It was constructive, and it was incremental. However, as we all know, the government has rejected this amendment.

What senators may not know is that, in the last few weeks, I and a few other senators, as we have crafted different versions of this amendment, have also had a number of conversations and exchanges with the minister and his office. During these conversations, we have been able to convince the minister that action is required — in fact, it is required now — and are exploring different options for going forward. I will, therefore, not be insisting on this amendment because I, for one, am willing to take the government at their word, and the minister at his word, that they are, in fact, seized with this issue and the urgency to resolve it. We have been assured and reassured that they’re actively looking at solutions in the short and long term.

I will not repeat what Senator Eggleton cited in the letter from Minister Hussen, only to say that a commitment has been made to work with us, and the letter says, for instance, the minister says to us:

. . . I am committed to carefully considering and addressing the immigration consequences of Bills C-45 and C-46. My department is examining the tools within my authority to mitigate immigration consequences . . . .

And so on and so forth. So, while I am going to take the minister and the government at their word, I parse the sentences, and I am cautious about the qualifying nature of the verbs that are involved. The minister uses words like “explore ,” “consider” and “examine.” Those are not exactly action words.

So here’s what I’m going to do. I intend to hold the minister to account for his promises in this letter and for his actions. We will be meeting with the minister in September to discuss how far his proposals, his solutions, have come, and these will range from directives in the short term to proposed legislation in the long term.

I also take comfort from a sentence in the letter that says that the department will be proactively informing the public, including permanent residents, to make them aware of the possible immigration consequences of engaging in prohibited cannabis-related criminal activities, as well as impaired driving, which takes us into Bill C-46.

I believe that this chamber and the Social Affairs Committee did an excellent job in identifying an issue that the government had clearly overlooked and now is seized with. We have fulfilled our role of careful scrutiny of the bill and identified a major issue and a path forward. We have found, I believe, an appropriate and mutually respectful way of working with the other place, and, in doing so, we have demonstrated our value to the people of Canada and that we are indeed the house of sober second thought. To that end, I say: Good work, honourable colleagues, and a job well done.